Catholic dogma on the 'certainty of knowing God' question

  • Thread starter Thread starter BenSinner
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

BenSinner

Guest
God, our Creator and Lord, can be known with certainty, by the natural light of reason from created things.

This is the very first dogma listed by Ott.

I’m somewhat apprehensive about this and kind of concerns me. This is infallibly saying that we can know God with certainty. This seems to contradict the fact that we have to live by faith. While the evidence for God is VERY strong, I’m not sure if it is certain. While I believe God exists, I can never find certainty that he does. There are always little doubts that can pop into one’s head (maybe I have faulty logic, maybe the Bible was distorted, maybe the Church really isn’t infallible, etc. etc.)

So what exactly is meant by certain here? Because if it is anything less than being certain, then it’s not certain and this would mean this dogma is incorrect…which would mean the Church is incorrect…and I find this worrisome.
 
BenSinner said:
God, our Creator and Lord, can be known with certainty, by the natural light of reason from created things.

This is the very first dogma listed by Ott.

I’m somewhat apprehensive about this and kind of concerns me. This is infallibly saying that we can know God with certainty. This seems to contradict the fact that we have to live by faith. While the evidence for God is VERY strong, I’m not sure if it is certain. While I believe God exists, I can never find certainty that he does. There are always little doubts that can pop into one’s head (maybe I have faulty logic, maybe the Bible was distorted, maybe the Church really isn’t infallible, etc. etc.)

So what exactly is meant by certain here? Because if it is anything less than being certain, then it’s not certain and this would mean this dogma is incorrect…which would mean the Church is incorrect…and I find this worrisome.
Click to expand...
Yours is an intelligent reflection Ben: if the words of the church mean that every human being (including BenSinner) currently know God with certainty, by the natural light of their reason, then those words must be false, unless they know you much better than you do… but, is this the meaning of those words? Don’t they mean instead that a rational demonstration of God’s existence is possible, so that someone who understands it acquires certainty?
 
BenSinner said:
God, our Creator and Lord, can be known with certainty, by the natural light of reason from created things.

This is the very first dogma listed by Ott.

I’m somewhat apprehensive about this and kind of concerns me. This is infallibly saying that we can know God with certainty. This seems to contradict the fact that we have to live by faith. While the evidence for God is VERY strong, I’m not sure if it is certain. While I believe God exists, I can never find certainty that he does. There are always little doubts that can pop into one’s head (maybe I have faulty logic, maybe the Bible was distorted, maybe the Church really isn’t infallible, etc. etc.)

So what exactly is meant by certain here? Because if it is anything less than being certain, then it’s not certain and this would mean this dogma is incorrect…which would mean the Church is incorrect…and I find this worrisome.
Click to expand...
Denzinger 1806 - (Vatican I, SESSION III April 24, 1870, Canons 2. Revelation)
1. [Against those denying natural theology]. If anyone shall have said that the one true God, our Creator and our Lord, cannot be known with certitude by those things which have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema [cf. 1785].
Click to expand...
Denzinger 1785 - (Vatican I, SESSION III April 24, 1870, Chapter 2. Revelation)
[The fact of positive supernatural revelation] .The same Holy Mother Church holds and teaches that God, the beginning and end of all things, can be known with certitude by the natural light of human reason from created things; “for the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made” [Rom 1:20]; nevertheless, it has pleased His wisdom and goodness to reveal Himself and the eternal decrees of His will to the human race in another and supernatural way, as the Apostle says: “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners, spoke in times past to the fathers by the prophets, last of all, in these days hath spoken to us by His Son” [Heb.1:1 f; can. 1].
Click to expand...
http://patristica.net/denzinger/#n1800

From Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 13:
2. Scriptural Proof
According to the testimony of Holy Writ, the existence of God can be known :
a) from nature: Wis. 13, 1-9. V. 5: “For by the greatness of the beauty, and of the creature, the creator of them may be seen”. Rom. 1, 20: “For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made. His eternal power and His divinity also: so that they are inexcusable.” The knowledge of God witnessed to in these two passages is a natural, certain, immediate and easily achieved knowledge.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
What is Ott? (I can just feel this is a stupid dangerous question)

I do not believe God can be known with certainty by the natural light of reason. If this is Catholic dogma, I owe some nonCatholics an apology. I have disputed this statement from them (as Catholic) as an untrue, wildly vicious uninformed accusation. Oh well.
 
Last edited:
I am really with you on this.

Many times on here it is stated or at least inferred that one “can know”, well faith seems to take a very second position?

Phrases like “you have to believe” in the case of a dogma, well to me (personally) can someone really believe in something because they “have to”?
 
Last edited:
So Vico, does it mean that BenSinner does know with certainty (though he is deceiving himself) about God, or what?
 
Last edited:
JuanFlorencio said:
So Vico, does it mean that BenSinner does know with certainty (though he is deceiving himself) about God, or what?
Click to expand...
The dogma states with certainty that God can be known with certainty, by the natural light of reason from created things.

BenSinner is experiencing doubts so states: “…if it is anything less than being certain, then it’s not certain and this would mean this dogma is incorrect…I find this worrisome.” BinSinner is not personally opposing a dogma of the Church.
 
BenSinner said:
God, our Creator and Lord, can be known with certainty, by the natural light of reason from created things.

This is the very first dogma listed by Ott.

I’m somewhat apprehensive about this and kind of concerns me. This is infallibly saying that we can know God with certainty. This seems to contradict the fact that we have to live by faith. While the evidence for God is VERY strong, I’m not sure if it is certain. While I believe God exists, I can never find certainty that he does. There are always little doubts that can pop into one’s head (maybe I have faulty logic, maybe the Bible was distorted, maybe the Church really isn’t infallible, etc. etc.)

So what exactly is meant by certain here? Because if it is anything less than being certain, then it’s not certain and this would mean this dogma is incorrect…which would mean the Church is incorrect…and I find this worrisome.
Click to expand...
Realize that the God whom the Church teaches can be known with certainty by the light of reason is not necessarily the Christian God but in any case is a creator-god. The things that the universe are made up of, that obviously didn’t design and create themselves, call for the need of a creator, a mind behind it all. This is a starting point, a “motive of credibility” for belief in the God revealed by Christ whose attributes far transcend a god who merely creates.
 
Last edited:
BenSinner said:
This is infallibly saying that we can know God with certainty. This seems to contradict the fact that we have to live by faith.
Click to expand...
I can know with certainty, through reason and my five senses, that the Baltimore Ravens exist. However, that doesn’t mean that I have have faith in them or follow them (after all, God loves the Steelers more 😉 ).

Same here: this is merely saying that, through an honest examination of creation, we can know that God exists.
So what exactly is meant by certain here?
Click to expand...
Notice, as well, that the statement doesn’t say that all will know God with certainty, just that we can know Him with certainty.

One last thought. From the Catechism:
36 “Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason.” Without this capacity, man would not be able to welcome God’s revelation. Man has this capacity because he is created “in the image of God”.

37 In the historical conditions in which he finds himself, however, man experiences many difficulties in coming to know God by the light of reason alone:

Though human reason is, strictly speaking, truly capable by its own natural power and light of attaining to a true and certain knowledge of the one personal God, who watches over and controls the world by his providence, and of the natural law written in our hearts by the Creator; yet there are many obstacles which prevent reason from the effective and fruitful use of this inborn faculty. For the truths that concern the relations between God and man wholly transcend the visible order of things, and, if they are translated into human action and influence it, they call for self-surrender and abnegation. The human mind, in its turn, is hampered in the attaining of such truths, not only by the impact of the senses and the imagination, but also by disordered appetites which are the consequences of original sin. So it happens that men in such matters easily persuade themselves that what they would not like to be true is false or at least doubtful.

38 This is why man stands in need of being enlightened by God’s revelation, not only about those things that exceed his understanding, but also “about those religious and moral truths which of themselves are not beyond the grasp of human reason, so that even in the present condition of the human race, they can be known by all men with ease, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error”.
Click to expand...
The Catechism IDs the quote you’ve started the thread with, @BenSinner, as having come from the First Vatican Council’s document Dei filius. There, it also quotes Romans 1:20, in which Paul is saying that we can know the invisible God through his visible creation. So, it’s not so much something that the Church asserts in a vacuum: the assertion exists in Scripture…
 
FollowChrist34 said:
If this is Catholic dogma, I owe some nonCatholics an apology. I have disputed this statement from them (as Catholic) as an untrue, wildly vicious uninformed accusation.
Click to expand...
Are these “non-Catholics” also non-Christians? The assertion is in Scripture. 😉

Also, keep in mind that it’s not just the application of reason in a vacuum, but the application of reason as applied to the experience of the created universe (and, as it were, the experience of God’s revelation).
 
Ott is not the teaching authority of the Church. If anyone wants to know what the Church actually teaches then they should read the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
 
BenSinner said:
God, our Creator and Lord, can be known with certainty, by the natural light of reason from created things.

This is the very first dogma listed by Ott.

I’m somewhat apprehensive about this and kind of concerns me. This is infallibly saying that we can know God with certainty. This seems to contradict the fact that we have to live by faith. While the evidence for God is VERY strong, I’m not sure if it is certain. While I believe God exists, I can never find certainty that he does. There are always little doubts that can pop into one’s head (maybe I have faulty logic, maybe the Bible was distorted, maybe the Church really isn’t infallible, etc. etc.)

So what exactly is meant by certain here? Because if it is anything less than being certain, then it’s not certain and this would mean this dogma is incorrect…which would mean the Church is incorrect…and I find this worrisom
Click to expand...
My REPLY will be on 2 or 3 Consecutive POST due to SPACE limits

Can GOD Exist [with evidence]?

Permit me my friend to provide evidence of God that is [1] logical [2] provable and [3] and understandable.

God can accurately described as “ALL GOOD-things Perfected”

Hence everything GOOD comes from or through GOD

May I suggest my friend that every time you look into a mirror you ARE seeing mirror-image evidence of GOD.

Did you choose what you’re wearing today?

If you did I can show evidence of God to you.

Genesis, 1: 26 & 27 we are taught that we are made in the image & likeness of God.
Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; … So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them

John 4: 23-24, tells us that {our} God is “A SPIRIT}
“But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for such the Father seeks to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth."

If God is a Spirit and man is made in His Image; how can that be? “Man” is physical & mortal; God is a SPIRIT & immortal.

[1] In all of the Universes BILLIONS of stars, galaxies and planets, only ONE can be proven to be able to support ALL of the Life-Forms that we are aware of. Planet Earth

[2] On Planet Earth with its hundreds of MILLIONS of living things; only ONE, only Man can choose to love or hate, only Man, is Rational.

[3] In order for Man to be able to love, hate & rationalize require in an absolute sense:
A mind {not meaning our brain}

A Intellect {not meaning “I.Q.} &
A Freewill

[4] Each of these attributes, are similar to God: Spiritual realities & immortal. Meaning that they can’t be killed & don’t die. At the Instant of conception, GOD attaches to every Human Soul, a mind, intellect & Freewill. Similar to GOD these attributes are spiritual and immortal, and can only come FROM GOD.

CONTINUED ON NEXT POST
 
CONTINUED FROM LAST POST"EVIDENCE OF GOD

[5] If you’re doubtful? Define for me your “FREEWILL” What is its size, weight, color & shape?
It can’t be done but only a foolish person would claim that it does not exist.

[6] Science tells us that like things originate from other “like-things.”

[7]These “Spiritual Realities” have to have a source, other than our parents, who transmit our physical attributes & bodies; but cannot transmit “spiritual {invisible/ non-physical} things”.

[8} further evidence of a Power, a Source greater than man is evidenced in the Natural Laws: Motion & gravity for example. … The Sun & the Moon are essential in sustaining Earths life forms. With many BILLIONS of stars and planets the odds that they exist in the forms NECESSARY to sustain life, and then BE in OUR Galaxy is many BILLIUONS to One. {Impossible!} By luck or coincidence.

[8] The existence of Moral Laws: Goodness & Morality are evidence of God’s very shared nature and evil proves the Power of God’s gifts to humanity who alone are RATIONAL creatures, able to love or hate God; and charged with the responsibility to choose for themselves, Eternal Hell or Heaven.
So every time you look into a mirror, if you’re able to recognize
Yourself; it is because GOD has enabled you too. Amen!

For THOSE seeking even more evidence I share Aquinas’ “5 ways” PLS SEE NEXT POST

CONTINUED ON NEXT POST
 
CONTINUED FROM LAST POST

St. Thomas Aquinas:
The Existence of God can be proved in five ways.
Argument Analysis of the Five Ways

http://web.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/web publishing/aquinasFiveWays_ArgumentAnalysis.htm

The above is too large to cut & paste, but can also be used.

God Bless,
PJM

St. Thomas Aquinas:
The Existence of God can be proved in five ways.
Argument Analysis of the Five Ways © 2016 Theodore Gracyk

The First Way: Argument from Motion
  1. Our senses prove that some things are in motion.
  2. Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion.
  3. Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.
  4. Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another).
  5. Therefore nothing can move itself.
  6. Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else.
  7. The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum.
  8. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.
    The Second Way: Argument from Efficient Causes
  9. We perceive a series of efficient causes of things in the world.
  10. Nothing exists prior to itself.
  11. Therefore nothing [in the world of things we perceive] is the efficient cause of itself.
  12. If a previous efficient cause does not exist, neither does the thing that results (the effect).
  13. Therefore if the first thing in a series does not exist, nothing in the series exists.
  14. If the series of efficient causes extends ad infinitum into the past, for then there would be no things existing now.
  15. That is plainly false (i.e., there are things existing now that came about through efficient causes).
  16. Therefore efficient causes do not extend ad infinitum into the past.
  17. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.
    The Third Way: Argument from Possibility and Necessity (Reductio argument)
  18. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, that come into being and go out of being i.e., contingent beings.
  19. Assume that every being is a contingent being.
  20. For each contingent being, there is a time it does not exist.
  21. Therefore it is impossible for these always to exist.
  22. Therefore there could have been a time when no things existed.
CONTINUED ON NEXT POST
 
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST
  1. Therefore at that time there would have been nothing to bring the currently existing contingent beings into existence.
  2. Therefore, nothing would be in existence now.
  3. We have reached an absurd result from assuming that every being is a contingent being.
  4. Therefore not every being is a contingent being.
  5. Therefore some being exists of its own necessity, and does not receive its existence from another being, but rather causes them. This all men speak of as God.
    The Fourth Way: Argument from Gradation of Being
  6. There is a gradation to be found in things: some are better or worse than others.
  7. Predications of degree require reference to the “uttermost” case (e.g., a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest).
  8. The maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus.
  9. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.
    The Fifth Way: Argument from Design
  10. We see that natural bodies work toward some goal, and do not do so by chance.
  11. Most natural things lack knowledge.
  12. But as an arrow reaches its target because it is directed by an archer, what lacks intelligence achieves goals by being directed by something intelligence.
  13. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.
God Exist, and Blesses you
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top